Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RDPreus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86
Were you interested in the Lambeth conference, Peter, when they first welcomed the gay bishops?
And it sounds as if spectator magazine, like almost everything else, is defining ELCA by only certain examples. It’s as if I were to define the whole Missouri synod only by the late Herman Otten or the not late Peter Speckhard.

My son is pastor at Trinity in New Haven, Missouri, where Rev. Otten served for many years.  Herman Otten was a faithful pastor who raised a fine Christian family.

Your Turn / Re: AFLC 2022 Conference
« on: June 21, 2022, 04:51:19 PM »
While it is true that most of the Norwegian Lutherans in America who did not formally subscribe the entire Book of Concord nevertheless accepted it, former President of the ALC, David Preus, wrote a book a few years ago in which he contrasted his approach to theology and church matters with that of his cousin, J. A. O. Preus II, who served as president of the LCMS while David was serving as president of the ALC.  David attributed some of their differences to the fact that Jack had subscribed to the Formula of Concord.  David came close to criticizing that subscription.  I'm sorry, I can't remember the name of the book, and it is in the cabin across the lake in Canada where we cannot go until the Canadian government starts issuing remote border crossing permits again.  I read the book about four or five years ago.  One of my cousins gave it to me.  I think she got it at a Preus family reunion.  The book is written in a friendly style, and David, always the gentleman, expresses his disagreements with his cousin in a nice way.  But one of those differences pertained to different views of the normative authority of the Formula of Concord.  If anyone is interested in the title and publisher, write Prime Minister Trudeau and tell him to open the border.  Thanks!

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 18, 2022, 04:48:29 PM »
That, in my not so humble opinion, was way out of line, but what the heck.

So, you decided to respond in kind with the childish “Is not! You are!”  😳

Peter is right: “Brian, uniquely in this board, has no consistent framework or theology built on that framework beyond hooray, we're all saved because God is no nice. He just plays with words for fun.”

As stated above, regarding the determination of morality, he ends up arguing with himself and throwing in a couple of nonsensical anecdotes.

Yup, I frequently argue with myself. It could mean this; or it could mean that; but there's also this other possibility.

I frequently argue with myself, too.  I am always right, and I am always wrong.

Your Turn / Re: Juneteenth
« on: June 18, 2022, 12:38:24 PM »
I'm retired, so I'm not preaching tomorrow, but I have preached on Luke 16:19-31, the Gospel for the First Sunday after Trinity, many times.  I think it would be easy to bring into it a treatment of fatherhood as Father Abraham is mentioned in the text.  As far as slavery is concerned, Lazarus, like the slaves, appeared to be forgotten by God, but, as his name indicates, God was his Helper.  God is our true Father who helps the helpless, frees the slave, and enriches the poor.

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 11, 2022, 01:23:31 PM »
"Perhaps you will detail the “ruin“ caused by the current administration."

Here's a summary: five dollar a gallon gas, five dollar a pound hamburger, five dollar a gallon milk, . . . need I go on?  And no, the fault isn't Putin, Trump, Covid, et al.  The fault is the ideologically driven Democrats who, imagining they are saving the planet, have declared war against domestic production of oil, thus driving up the cost of gas and diesel and everything that is moved by trucks, and imagining that spending trillions of dollars we don't have will somehow help the economy.  Fanatical ideologues have captured the Democratic Party, and this Party is in power.  This will cause the ruin of our great country unless God decides to have mercy on us, though we certainly don't deserve it!

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 11, 2022, 12:55:44 PM »
An insurrection?  Without guns?  That'd be a neat trick.

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 11, 2022, 10:47:00 AM »
It wasn't an insurrection, Rev. Austin.  Saying that it was will not make it so.  To use this word to describe what happened on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. is to parrot propaganda.  It was a protest that got out of hand.  The reason the Democrats produced this propaganda is to distract the voters from the harm their terrible policies have caused.  The specter of an insurrection is supposed to keep the voters from looking at the ruin caused by Biden and the Democrats since the last election.   

Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: June 09, 2022, 12:48:40 PM »
You tell me, folks, where any, repeat any violence or attacks from the “left” matches what went in to the January 6 insurrection. And I mean the “violence” that includes the planning, coordination, direction and execution of that insurrection and the attempt to overturn a just election by some of the top officials in our government.
You think anything that’s coming from the “left“ these days equals that? It does not.
I do not know why Sensible Republicans did not speak up, did not come out to defend the election but caved into the silliness and the lies of those who wanted to claim the election was stolen and continued to make the claim even if it was after it was proven false.

Rev. Austin, I am not sure if the election was stolen.  I think it probably was.  Have you seen Dinesh D'Sousa's documentary, "2000 Mules"?  I found it somewhat persuasive.  But, as I said, I'm not sure.  Call me Almost Persuaded.  Rev. Austin, you have no doubts at all.  You write that the claim that the election was stolen "was proven false."  Can you point to that proof?  Thanks in advance!

Your Turn / Re: Colossians 3:15
« on: June 06, 2022, 11:16:42 PM »
"What struck me about this is that it is not doctrine, or teachings, or grace, or faith, that should be the "umpire" of our hearts, but "peace.""

Perhaps you are setting up a false antithesis here.  Doctrine, grace, and faith are all inextricably bound to peace.

Your Turn / Re: Laws against fornication and adultery?
« on: May 31, 2022, 11:36:19 AM »
"If one wants to make the Bible the moral basis for our civil laws, why shouldn't we also make it the basis for the punishment when those laws are broken?"

Good question.  I think the reason is that the Bible reflects natural law.  Even though, as Christians, we are not bound to Moses as to Moses, we are bound to Moses insofar as he is setting forth the natural law.  The natural law does not change from time to time and place to place.  The penalty for crime, on the other hand, would vary from time to time and place to place.  For example, in the Bible itself, the death penalty is carried out by means of stoning, decapitation (the sword), and even crucifixion.  Here in American we employ none of these methods.  We do, however, have the death penalty. 

How can we persuade women to want her baby?  For what it's worth, here's a paper I gave some years ago on the topic: "The Fruit of the Womb is a Reward."

Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 16, 2022, 12:49:18 PM »
Gun control is the litmus test political issue that divides Americans into right and left.  As someone on the right, I see this as a matter of defending personal freedom and responsibility in the face of unwanted and unwarranted government control.  Whenever the left sees a problem, it assumes that the government can solve it.  This leads to irrational solutions.  Gun control is irrational because the government can't ban guns in America.  There are too many of them and too many people own them.  Second, it is irrational to take away from millions of law-abiding citizens their constitutionally guaranteed right to protect themselves in order to protect us from lunatics who get their jollies by murdering innocent people.  It reminds me of Bush's invasion of Iraq to fight terrorism.  Do something!  Anything!  Will it actually work?  Who cares!  Do it!  Show you care!  That gun control will not achieve the results imagined by its proponents doesn't really matter because it's not about saving lives anyway.  It's about empowering the government.  Recalcitrant conservatives need to be reined in.  It's all about control.  If you cared -- really cared! -- you would want to be reined in by the left.  Cast your cares on the government because he careth for you!

The Athanasian Creed says "those who have done good will enter eternal life."  It does not say that their eternal life is based on their doing good.  The Creed is just saying what Jesus said.

Yes, it does say that.

It also says that all of us will have to give an account for our own deeds. What do you make of that?

What about those who have done evil. Do they enter eternal fire because of their evil deeds?

Todays' Gospel Lesson answers your question.  The Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin "because they do not believe in me [Jesus]." (John 16:9) Apart from faith in Jesus, all works are evil.

“Hanging judge”? I’ve condemned no one other than quoting and paraphrasing the theologian with whom you are in fellowship that, if we accept Brian’s confession of the incarnation, which is in direct opposition to the Athanasian Creed, we all are condemned.

We are not in fellowship with theologians, but with church bodies.

Do you also quote this section of the Athanasian Creed (boldface added):
At his coming all people shall rise bodily
to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

Do you tell people that their eternal life is based on have "done good"? That's what the Creed says.

If you want to check out the original language, here is the Latin for that section.

Ad cuius adventum
omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis:
et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.
Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam:
qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum.
You defend the indefensible. I wonder why. Because God will save whomever He wishes, so it's no big deal?

So, what's your belief? God will save only those who deserve to be saved? Only those who exhibit the proper faith? Only those who "have done good"?

As I see it, you are the one trying to defend the indefensible. You are the one who denies salvation by God's grace by requiring some sort of human work for salvation, e.g., the proper faith, agreeing with the proper dogma, etc.

The Athanasian Creed says "those who have done good will enter eternal life."  It does not say that their eternal life is based on their doing good.  The Creed is just saying what Jesus said.

Your Turn / Re: Rev. Richard Johnson "St. John and the Jews"
« on: May 12, 2022, 02:37:50 PM »
To assign even partial blame to Luther for Hitler's mass murder of Jews is unfair for a number of reasons.  First, Luther's polemic was written when the civil authorities were responsible for the religious life of the country.  A 21st century American has a hard time understanding this.  Second, Luther's attack on the Jews was not racially driven.  His argument was theological.  Hitler and the Nazis, on the other hand, were thoroughgoing racists.  Third, Luther was a Christian.  Hitler was a pagan.  We Lutherans should not defend everything Luther said and should treat Jews with kindness and respect.  Jesus is a Jew.  On the other hand, as a Lutheran who grew up in Clayton, Missouri, and had many Jewish friends and acquaintances, I can testify from personal experience to blasphemies against our Lord Jesus and filthy insults of his mother Mary on the part of Jewish people who were taught, as Jews, to do so.  It goes both ways.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86